The Wage Bill

[Disco]

I don't know anyone who works or plays for the club, nor do I know anyone who knows any of those people.

 

I feel left out.

 

That's because you're not a Spurs fan.

[Martin Lol]

The latest set of football wages according to Deloitte's ...........................

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7424134.stm

[Dave]

That chart shows us (and West Ham) in by far the worst position tbh. Paying out top five wages and finishing 13th isn't very healthy.

[mrmojorisin75]

The latest set of football wages according to Deloitte's ...........................

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7424134.stm

 

there was a thread where someone brought up spurs spending in recent seasons but i could never find it again, i was going to ask the spurs resident ITK's how the club can continue spending at such a sustained rate?  they balance out to some degree i'm aware but very recently the balancing out part seems to have been forgotten?

 

genuine question like, not a piss take

[Guest devlin_adl]

The latest set of football wages according to Deloitte's ...........................

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7424134.stm

 

there was a thread where someone brought up spurs spending in recent seasons but i could never find it again, i was going to ask the spurs resident ITK's how the club can continue spending at such a sustained rate?  they balance out to some degree i'm aware but very recently the balancing out part seems to have been forgotten?

 

genuine question like, not a piss take

 

Look at the difference in the wage bill between Tottenham and Newcastle. There's your answer.

 

(It's even worse than it looks because the figure quoted for Newcastle doesn't include £6.7m of Owen's salary, as the club received compensation from the FA for that amount.)

[mrmojorisin75]

The latest set of football wages according to Deloitte's ...........................

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7424134.stm

 

there was a thread where someone brought up spurs spending in recent seasons but i could never find it again, i was going to ask the spurs resident ITK's how the club can continue spending at such a sustained rate?  they balance out to some degree i'm aware but very recently the balancing out part seems to have been forgotten?

 

genuine question like, not a piss take

 

Look at the difference in the wage bill between Tottenham and Newcastle. There's your answer.

 

(It's even worse than it looks because the figure quoted for Newcastle doesn't include £6.7m of Owen's salary, as the club received compensation from the FA for that amount.)

 

yeah i get the wage bill part but what about the actual spend?  16m or so in january on 2 players, 20m on modric or whatever and the indications are they've not finished yet...last summer didn't they spend about 40m on bent, kaboul, zokora etc...?

 

just wondering like...the cash can't come from nowhere can it?

[Taylor Swift]

How come we added £10m to our wage bill two summers ago? We signed only Duff and Martins. How's it possible that it jumped so much?

[thomas]

How come we added £10m to our wage bill two summers ago? We signed only Duff and Martins. How's it possible that it jumped so much?

Possible renegotiations of contracts after that finish, we also brought on le sib and a few others. 

[Guest neesy111]

it's all fair to say that our wage problems are down to shepherd, souness and allardyce

[Martin Lol]

The latest set of football wages according to Deloitte's ...........................

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7424134.stm

 

there was a thread where someone brought up spurs spending in recent seasons but i could never find it again, i was going to ask the spurs resident ITK's how the club can continue spending at such a sustained rate?  they balance out to some degree i'm aware but very recently the balancing out part seems to have been forgotten?

 

genuine question like, not a piss take

 

The money's put together in an assortment of ways.  Keeping a firm lid on the salary structure ensures not too much money is leaked that way.  In past years, there's been no overdraft, there is now.  Compared to most clubs it's still small but it's there now and I don't expect it to be cleared off soon.  Ramos has convinced Levy that he'll have to pay for a challenge on the top 4 and Levy thinks the club is sound enough to go for it.

 

Season tickets continues to go through the roof, another 10% increase this time around, and that is from a high starting level as well.  Spurs also had rights issues on their shares, underwritten by Enic.  The majority weren't taken up so Enic took them up at what is now a bargain price.  Basically, a means enabling Joe Lewis/Daniel Levy to put more money in and getting the benefit of actually reducing their overall cost per share.  There were major rows about it at board level and the Finance Director left over it.  That enabled Enic to set up long term loans (which are only just being drawn upon) at pretty good rates for the new Academy and have money left over to put towards the new stadium.  I'm not an Accountant and don't really understand how the benefits work, but I'm told they are significant.

 

Finally, Levy always has loads of ifs and buts in transfer contracts, some of the transfer fees mentioned in the media never materialise simply because the trigger to spark another payment never happens.  Also, in the past 4 years or so, almost every player bought was subsequently sold at a profit.  Bent, Boateng and Kaboul may buck the trend when they go, but Jol wanted them and ultimately they were part of the reason why he went.

[Dave]

Oh no...

[Colos Short and Curlies]

The latest set of football wages according to Deloitte's ...........................

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7424134.stm

 

there was a thread where someone brought up spurs spending in recent seasons but i could never find it again, i was going to ask the spurs resident ITK's how the club can continue spending at such a sustained rate?  they balance out to some degree i'm aware but very recently the balancing out part seems to have been forgotten?

 

genuine question like, not a piss take

 

The money's put together in an assortment of ways.  Keeping a firm lid on the salary structure ensures not too much money is leaked that way.  In past years, there's been no overdraft, there is now.  Compared to most clubs it's still small but it's there now and I don't expect it to be cleared off soon.  Ramos has convinced Levy that he'll have to pay for a challenge on the top 4 and Levy thinks the club is sound enough to go for it.

 

Season tickets continues to go through the roof, another 10% increase this time around, and that is from a high starting level as well.  Spurs also had rights issues on their shares, underwritten by Enic.  The majority weren't taken up so Enic took them up at what is now a bargain price.  Basically, a means enabling Joe Lewis/Daniel Levy to put more money in and getting the benefit of actually reducing their overall cost per share.  There were major rows about it at board level and the Finance Director left over it.  That enabled Enic to set up long term loans (which are only just being drawn upon) at pretty good rates for the new Academy and have money left over to put towards the new stadium.  I'm not an Accountant and don't really understand how the benefits work, but I'm told they are significant.

 

Finally, Levy always has loads of ifs and buts in transfer contracts, some of the transfer fees mentioned in the media never materialise simply because the trigger to spark another payment never happens.  Also, in the past 4 years or so, almost every player bought was subsequently sold at a profit.  Bent, Boateng and Kaboul may buck the trend when they go, but Jol wanted them and ultimately they were part of the reason why he went.

 

I'll assume that the above is correct, but to keep spending the way Spurs have been over the past 2 years or so they will need CL football very soon to start covering costs

[Martin Lol]

The latest set of football wages according to Deloitte's ...........................

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7424134.stm

 

there was a thread where someone brought up spurs spending in recent seasons but i could never find it again, i was going to ask the spurs resident ITK's how the club can continue spending at such a sustained rate?  they balance out to some degree i'm aware but very recently the balancing out part seems to have been forgotten?

 

genuine question like, not a piss take

 

The money's put together in an assortment of ways.  Keeping a firm lid on the salary structure ensures not too much money is leaked that way.  In past years, there's been no overdraft, there is now.  Compared to most clubs it's still small but it's there now and I don't expect it to be cleared off soon.  Ramos has convinced Levy that he'll have to pay for a challenge on the top 4 and Levy thinks the club is sound enough to go for it.

 

Season tickets continues to go through the roof, another 10% increase this time around, and that is from a high starting level as well.  Spurs also had rights issues on their shares, underwritten by Enic.  The majority weren't taken up so Enic took them up at what is now a bargain price.  Basically, a means enabling Joe Lewis/Daniel Levy to put more money in and getting the benefit of actually reducing their overall cost per share.  There were major rows about it at board level and the Finance Director left over it.  That enabled Enic to set up long term loans (which are only just being drawn upon) at pretty good rates for the new Academy and have money left over to put towards the new stadium.  I'm not an Accountant and don't really understand how the benefits work, but I'm told they are significant.

 

Finally, Levy always has loads of ifs and buts in transfer contracts, some of the transfer fees mentioned in the media never materialise simply because the trigger to spark another payment never happens.  Also, in the past 4 years or so, almost every player bought was subsequently sold at a profit.  Bent, Boateng and Kaboul may buck the trend when they go, but Jol wanted them and ultimately they were part of the reason why he went.

 

I'll assume that the above is correct, but to keep spending the way Spurs have been over the past 2 years or so they will need CL football very soon to start covering costs

 

I heard that it was sustainable without CL for 2 years, probably 3.  By that time there should be a new stadium with more corporate boxes and jacked up ST prices to go with it.  The probability is that we'll be under new ownership long before that in any case.

[relámpago blanco]

The latest set of football wages according to Deloitte's ...........................

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7424134.stm

 

there was a thread where someone brought up spurs spending in recent seasons but i could never find it again, i was going to ask the spurs resident ITK's how the club can continue spending at such a sustained rate?  they balance out to some degree i'm aware but very recently the balancing out part seems to have been forgotten?

 

genuine question like, not a piss take

 

The money's put together in an assortment of ways.  Keeping a firm lid on the salary structure ensures not too much money is leaked that way.  In past years, there's been no overdraft, there is now.  Compared to most clubs it's still small but it's there now and I don't expect it to be cleared off soon.  Ramos has convinced Levy that he'll have to pay for a challenge on the top 4 and Levy thinks the club is sound enough to go for it.

 

Season tickets continues to go through the roof, another 10% increase this time around, and that is from a high starting level as well.  Spurs also had rights issues on their shares, underwritten by Enic.  The majority weren't taken up so Enic took them up at what is now a bargain price.  Basically, a means enabling Joe Lewis/Daniel Levy to put more money in and getting the benefit of actually reducing their overall cost per share.  There were major rows about it at board level and the Finance Director left over it.  That enabled Enic to set up long term loans (which are only just being drawn upon) at pretty good rates for the new Academy and have money left over to put towards the new stadium.  I'm not an Accountant and don't really understand how the benefits work, but I'm told they are significant.

 

Finally, Levy always has loads of ifs and buts in transfer contracts, some of the transfer fees mentioned in the media never materialise simply because the trigger to spark another payment never happens.  Also, in the past 4 years or so, almost every player bought was subsequently sold at a profit.  Bent, Boateng and Kaboul may buck the trend when they go, but Jol wanted them and ultimately they were part of the reason why he went.

 

I'll assume that the above is correct, but to keep spending the way Spurs have been over the past 2 years or so they will need CL football very soon to start covering costs

 

I heard that it was sustainable without CL for 2 years, probably 3.  By that time there should be a new stadium with more corporate boxes and jacked up ST prices to go with it.  The probability is that we'll be under new ownership long before that in any case.

Where will you build said stadium?

[Colos Short and Curlies]

The latest set of football wages according to Deloitte's ...........................

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7424134.stm

 

there was a thread where someone brought up spurs spending in recent seasons but i could never find it again, i was going to ask the spurs resident ITK's how the club can continue spending at such a sustained rate?  they balance out to some degree i'm aware but very recently the balancing out part seems to have been forgotten?

 

genuine question like, not a piss take

 

The money's put together in an assortment of ways.  Keeping a firm lid on the salary structure ensures not too much money is leaked that way.  In past years, there's been no overdraft, there is now.  Compared to most clubs it's still small but it's there now and I don't expect it to be cleared off soon.  Ramos has convinced Levy that he'll have to pay for a challenge on the top 4 and Levy thinks the club is sound enough to go for it.

 

Season tickets continues to go through the roof, another 10% increase this time around, and that is from a high starting level as well.  Spurs also had rights issues on their shares, underwritten by Enic.  The majority weren't taken up so Enic took them up at what is now a bargain price.  Basically, a means enabling Joe Lewis/Daniel Levy to put more money in and getting the benefit of actually reducing their overall cost per share.  There were major rows about it at board level and the Finance Director left over it.  That enabled Enic to set up long term loans (which are only just being drawn upon) at pretty good rates for the new Academy and have money left over to put towards the new stadium.  I'm not an Accountant and don't really understand how the benefits work, but I'm told they are significant.

 

Finally, Levy always has loads of ifs and buts in transfer contracts, some of the transfer fees mentioned in the media never materialise simply because the trigger to spark another payment never happens.  Also, in the past 4 years or so, almost every player bought was subsequently sold at a profit.  Bent, Boateng and Kaboul may buck the trend when they go, but Jol wanted them and ultimately they were part of the reason why he went.

 

I'll assume that the above is correct, but to keep spending the way Spurs have been over the past 2 years or so they will need CL football very soon to start covering costs

 

I heard that it was sustainable without CL for 2 years, probably 3.  By that time there should be a new stadium with more corporate boxes and jacked up ST prices to go with it.  The probability is that we'll be under new ownership long before that in any case.

Where will you build said stadium?

 

The FA have already built them one at Wembley duh!

[relámpago blanco]

The latest set of football wages according to Deloitte's ...........................

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7424134.stm

 

there was a thread where someone brought up spurs spending in recent seasons but i could never find it again, i was going to ask the spurs resident ITK's how the club can continue spending at such a sustained rate?  they balance out to some degree i'm aware but very recently the balancing out part seems to have been forgotten?

 

genuine question like, not a piss take

 

The money's put together in an assortment of ways.  Keeping a firm lid on the salary structure ensures not too much money is leaked that way.  In past years, there's been no overdraft, there is now.  Compared to most clubs it's still small but it's there now and I don't expect it to be cleared off soon.  Ramos has convinced Levy that he'll have to pay for a challenge on the top 4 and Levy thinks the club is sound enough to go for it.

 

Season tickets continues to go through the roof, another 10% increase this time around, and that is from a high starting level as well.  Spurs also had rights issues on their shares, underwritten by Enic.  The majority weren't taken up so Enic took them up at what is now a bargain price.  Basically, a means enabling Joe Lewis/Daniel Levy to put more money in and getting the benefit of actually reducing their overall cost per share.  There were major rows about it at board level and the Finance Director left over it.  That enabled Enic to set up long term loans (which are only just being drawn upon) at pretty good rates for the new Academy and have money left over to put towards the new stadium.  I'm not an Accountant and don't really understand how the benefits work, but I'm told they are significant.

 

Finally, Levy always has loads of ifs and buts in transfer contracts, some of the transfer fees mentioned in the media never materialise simply because the trigger to spark another payment never happens.  Also, in the past 4 years or so, almost every player bought was subsequently sold at a profit.  Bent, Boateng and Kaboul may buck the trend when they go, but Jol wanted them and ultimately they were part of the reason why he went.

 

I'll assume that the above is correct, but to keep spending the way Spurs have been over the past 2 years or so they will need CL football very soon to start covering costs

 

I heard that it was sustainable without CL for 2 years, probably 3.  By that time there should be a new stadium with more corporate boxes and jacked up ST prices to go with it.  The probability is that we'll be under new ownership long before that in any case.

Where will you build said stadium?

 

The FA have already built them one at Wembley duh!

Surely they can't move to a ground that Arsenal once called home in the CL albeit with a fancy facelift.  Weren't West Ham going to move to the Olympics one aswell?

[Martin Lol]

The latest set of football wages according to Deloitte's ...........................

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7424134.stm

 

there was a thread where someone brought up spurs spending in recent seasons but i could never find it again, i was going to ask the spurs resident ITK's how the club can continue spending at such a sustained rate?  they balance out to some degree i'm aware but very recently the balancing out part seems to have been forgotten?

 

genuine question like, not a piss take

 

The money's put together in an assortment of ways.  Keeping a firm lid on the salary structure ensures not too much money is leaked that way.  In past years, there's been no overdraft, there is now.  Compared to most clubs it's still small but it's there now and I don't expect it to be cleared off soon.  Ramos has convinced Levy that he'll have to pay for a challenge on the top 4 and Levy thinks the club is sound enough to go for it.

 

Season tickets continues to go through the roof, another 10% increase this time around, and that is from a high starting level as well.  Spurs also had rights issues on their shares, underwritten by Enic.  The majority weren't taken up so Enic took them up at what is now a bargain price.  Basically, a means enabling Joe Lewis/Daniel Levy to put more money in and getting the benefit of actually reducing their overall cost per share.  There were major rows about it at board level and the Finance Director left over it.  That enabled Enic to set up long term loans (which are only just being drawn upon) at pretty good rates for the new Academy and have money left over to put towards the new stadium.  I'm not an Accountant and don't really understand how the benefits work, but I'm told they are significant.

 

Finally, Levy always has loads of ifs and buts in transfer contracts, some of the transfer fees mentioned in the media never materialise simply because the trigger to spark another payment never happens.  Also, in the past 4 years or so, almost every player bought was subsequently sold at a profit.  Bent, Boateng and Kaboul may buck the trend when they go, but Jol wanted them and ultimately they were part of the reason why he went.

 

I'll assume that the above is correct, but to keep spending the way Spurs have been over the past 2 years or so they will need CL football very soon to start covering costs

 

I heard that it was sustainable without CL for 2 years, probably 3.  By that time there should be a new stadium with more corporate boxes and jacked up ST prices to go with it.  The probability is that we'll be under new ownership long before that in any case.

             

Where will you build said stadium?

 

The general consensus is adjacent to WHL on the site of the trading estate with a capacity of 50k with room to expand further.  Official announcement expected around September time.

 

Not much good for the general football fan, most of the extra seats will be corporate boxes by all accounts.  But that's where the money is ................. 

 

 

Edit:  That would mean staying at WHL while it was built.

[relámpago blanco]

The latest set of football wages according to Deloitte's ...........................

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7424134.stm

 

there was a thread where someone brought up spurs spending in recent seasons but i could never find it again, i was going to ask the spurs resident ITK's how the club can continue spending at such a sustained rate?  they balance out to some degree i'm aware but very recently the balancing out part seems to have been forgotten?

 

genuine question like, not a piss take

 

The money's put together in an assortment of ways.  Keeping a firm lid on the salary structure ensures not too much money is leaked that way.  In past years, there's been no overdraft, there is now.  Compared to most clubs it's still small but it's there now and I don't expect it to be cleared off soon.  Ramos has convinced Levy that he'll have to pay for a challenge on the top 4 and Levy thinks the club is sound enough to go for it.

 

Season tickets continues to go through the roof, another 10% increase this time around, and that is from a high starting level as well.  Spurs also had rights issues on their shares, underwritten by Enic.  The majority weren't taken up so Enic took them up at what is now a bargain price.  Basically, a means enabling Joe Lewis/Daniel Levy to put more money in and getting the benefit of actually reducing their overall cost per share.  There were major rows about it at board level and the Finance Director left over it.  That enabled Enic to set up long term loans (which are only just being drawn upon) at pretty good rates for the new Academy and have money left over to put towards the new stadium.  I'm not an Accountant and don't really understand how the benefits work, but I'm told they are significant.

 

Finally, Levy always has loads of ifs and buts in transfer contracts, some of the transfer fees mentioned in the media never materialise simply because the trigger to spark another payment never happens.  Also, in the past 4 years or so, almost every player bought was subsequently sold at a profit.  Bent, Boateng and Kaboul may buck the trend when they go, but Jol wanted them and ultimately they were part of the reason why he went.

 

I'll assume that the above is correct, but to keep spending the way Spurs have been over the past 2 years or so they will need CL football very soon to start covering costs

 

I heard that it was sustainable without CL for 2 years, probably 3.  By that time there should be a new stadium with more corporate boxes and jacked up ST prices to go with it.  The probability is that we'll be under new ownership long before that in any case.

             

Where will you build said stadium?

 

The general consensus is adjacent to WHL on the site of the trading estate with a capacity of 50k with room to expand further.  Official announcement expected around September time.

 

Not much good for the general football fan, most of the extra seats will be corporate boxes by all accounts.  But that's where the money is ................. 

 

 

Edit:  That would mean staying at WHL while it was built.

It'll still take longer then 2/3 years to get planning permission and build it.

[Matt]

If, as we expect, Spurs spend big again this summer, I think they will be under pressure to perform in the league. It's all very well lauding a wage structure, but ultimately if it is too rigid the better players will depart and the CL place will continue to prove elusive.

 

It is however, a good strategy when aiming to get a club somewhere between 8th-5th. I wonder if that's our medium-term aim.

[Guest Edd]

it's all fair to say that our wage problems are down to shepherd, souness and allardyce

Just Shepherd.  Ultimately he was the only one that could agree to pay these players the wages they are on.

[Guest getcarter]

This is supposedly the wages as a  percentage of turnover. Above 60% is supposed to be unsustainable.

 

Derby County 125%

Aston Villa 93%

Fulham 80%

Middlesbrough 80%

Blackburn Rovers 77%

West Ham 77%

Everton 75%

Bolton 70%

Chelsea 69%

Portsmouth 69%

Birmingham City 67%

Newcastle 62%

Reading 62%

Wigan 59%

Liverpool 58%

Manchester City 56%

Arsenal 51%

Manchester United 44%

Sunderland 44%

Tottenham Hotspur 42%

 

Ours dont look too bad in comparison to some of the other wasters.

[thewellander]

Apologies if this has all been said before - I haven't read all 7 pages of this thread. It seems like the wage problem can be at least partially remedied by offloading Duff, Smith, Barton, Geremi and Viduka and bringing in younger talent.

 

To me, that's a win-win and this isn't a big deal.

 

The underachievers in our squad should go and we should finally start building around the young, hungry players. Obviously, it will require some work in the offseason to make sure we target the right people and more patience on the fans' part will be required, but our previous system has failed and I think Ashley's wanting us to lower the wages can only be a good thing.

[Guest devlin_adl]

This is supposedly the wages as a  percentage of turnover. Above 60% is supposed to be unsustainable.

 

Derby County 125%

Aston Villa 93%

Fulham 80%

Middlesbrough 80%

Blackburn Rovers 77%

West Ham 77%

Everton 75%

Bolton 70%

Chelsea 69%

Portsmouth 69%

Birmingham City 67%

Newcastle 62%

Reading 62%

Wigan 59%

Liverpool 58%

Manchester City 56%

Arsenal 51%

Manchester United 44%

Sunderland 44%

Tottenham Hotspur 42%

 

Ours dont look too bad in comparison to some of the other wasters.

 

Your figures are way off for Newcastle. The wage bill was £62.4m (excluding the £6.7m payment from the FA for Owen's injury). The turnover was £87.1m.

 

So wages were either 72% of turnover or 79%, depending on whether you include Owen or not.

 

62% was the premiership average.

[Guest getcarter]

This is supposedly the wages as a  percentage of turnover. Above 60% is supposed to be unsustainable.

 

Derby County 125%

Aston Villa 93%

Fulham 80%

Middlesbrough 80%

Blackburn Rovers 77%

West Ham 77%

Everton 75%

Bolton 70%

Chelsea 69%

Portsmouth 69%

Birmingham City 67%

Newcastle 62%

Reading 62%

Wigan 59%

Liverpool 58%

Manchester City 56%

Arsenal 51%

Manchester United 44%

Sunderland 44%

Tottenham Hotspur 42%

 

Ours dont look too bad in comparison to some of the other wasters.

 

Your figures are way off for Newcastle. The wage bill was £62.4m (excluding the £6.7m payment from the FA for Owen's injury). The turnover was £87.1m.

 

So wages were either 72% of turnover or 79%, depending on whether you include Owen or not.

 

62% was the premiership average.

 

Take it up with Deloittes coz thats where the raw figures came from!

[Guest guinness_fiend]

Has anybody stated the obvious in that the figures are from the 2006/07 season and not 2007/08?

 

Given that Man City and West Ham, among others, bought a load more players, that table will be quite different now.